With DDR5 prices still rising, DDR4 vs. DDR5 is back in focus as we test whether pairing DDR4 with a budget Intel Core i5 CPU can offset the cost of DDR5 and challenge the Ryzen competition.
DDR5 vs. DDR4 Gaming Performance Revisited
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
I would caution that while 8GB DDR4 DIMMs are usually 1Rx8, the same is not true for DDR5. Only 16GB modules seem to be, while 8GB DDR5 are 1Rx16 from all the modules I have.
This has been benchmarked to lead to a pretty big drop in performance (over 15%), which may result in a DDR5 16GB kit to underperform relative to these benchmarks.
Given where RAM prices are, that may be something to keep in mind, as the upgrade to DDR5 16GB may not bring the performance you expect and CPUs like 5000X3D chips may end up a better for AM4 users.
This has been benchmarked to lead to a pretty big drop in performance (over 15%), which may result in a DDR5 16GB kit to underperform relative to these benchmarks.
Given where RAM prices are, that may be something to keep in mind, as the upgrade to DDR5 16GB may not bring the performance you expect and CPUs like 5000X3D chips may end up a better for AM4 users.
kira setsu
Posts: 920 +1,122
Why not use an intel top tier chip also? seems odd to test just that 9800x3d and not something higher up from intel.
It's wild that Spider-Man 2 is so CPU intensive that a $3000 GPU with an entry level CPU is beat by a $500 GPU with a fast CPU.
Because the point is not to make Intel fanboys feel better (or AMD fanboys either) or even to compare "higher up" CPUs. It's not even "testing" the 9800x3d. That was only included to show what happened without a CPU bottleneck because so many people still don't understand these tests (as plainly stated in the article). Importantly, the only reason they chose the 9800x3d is that it is the fastest gaming CPU available - not because they are biased towards AMD.
The point of this was to test DDR4 vs DDR5 (not if Intel or AMD had a faster best CPU). They included the CPU limited testing data since they made these videos back to back so why not throw that in for reference.
NicktheWVAHick
Posts: 579 +1,075
Well, my 72 GTO blows the doors off my wife’s AMG, so why not?
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 8,806 +17,916
Because they don’t need to? The 12400f shows that ddr4 is already a limitation. Believe it or not, but a faster chip would’ve limited too!
Lowhangingfruit
Posts: 113 +247
We're only having this conversation because DDR5 prices are out of control. Otherwise it'd be a no brainer.
What we need at this point is a "cost per frame" type analysis of DDR4 vs DDR5. Assuming your system gives you the option, or you're building a budget build.
DDR5 can in some cases be 2x as expensive as DDR4. Would 32GB of DDR4 be better than 16GB of DDR5? Again assuming you have an option and your MB doesn't restrict you to DDR5.
What we need at this point is a "cost per frame" type analysis of DDR4 vs DDR5. Assuming your system gives you the option, or you're building a budget build.
DDR5 can in some cases be 2x as expensive as DDR4. Would 32GB of DDR4 be better than 16GB of DDR5? Again assuming you have an option and your MB doesn't restrict you to DDR5.
Thatsdisgusting
Posts: 520 +598
I dunno. Motherboards were nuts all the time - x870e tomahawk cost around 400$ where I am.
And AM5 X3D CPUs - the only viable option for me to move from 5800x3d - were out of touch since 9800x3d release.
Megalomaniac
Posts: 1,157 +1,224
Long story short, you want to have DDR5.
32GB if possible.
64GB if necessary.
128GB is absolutely, positively necessary.
I have 64GB DDR5.
32GB if possible.
64GB if necessary.
128GB is absolutely, positively necessary.
I have 64GB DDR5.
JaredTheDragon
Posts: 823 +570
That's not what any of those words mean.
Wait! Im losing that much performance running 3200 vs 3600? Or does it not influence all that much at 1440p and a 5800x3d?
I capped my frame rates at 60 fps as anything beyond that is just wasted power/processing. Wasn't getting any benefits other than extra fan noise at 120 refresh rates. BG3 still looked amazing and same with CP2077. Don't have to listen to my 3080 turbo hit 9,000 rpm.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 8,806 +17,916
The x3d isn't affected to the same degree, your limitations at 1440p is going to be GPU 99 percent of the time.
For the most part. Certain games still benefit. If AMD supported CUDIMMs I'd bet you'd see a difference between 6000 and 7200+
More realistic scenario nowadays is 4K and there the difference collapses rapidly; even DDR3 hold up decently in many titles at 4K.i7 13700KF to Bloomfield
Last edited:
Nothing weird about it, Ryzen is the best for gaming period, useless to have “top” Intel when it’s still just trash.
I only buy 14900k I overclock them out of the wazoo and when they go kookoo I buy a new one I got a big stack of burned out chips. AMD is doing crazy good stuff but I value productivity over anything and I don’t see a difference between 165hz and 240hz so its good enough for me to no scope someone across the map in cs2. Just kidding I’m terrible at ca haha.
DonquixoteIII
Posts: 205 +136
Does everyone still game at 1080? 
Wrong, 1440p can be highly CPU bound, so can 4K/UHD, it all depends on the framerate. High fps = More CPU bound. 4K native is just that demanding, that most peoples GPU will bottleneck anyway. Use 5090 and lower the settings to blast 200+ fps and you will be CPU limited at 4K as well. 4K/240Hz exist you know.
Besides, not many using 4K+ are actually using 4K+ at native res. They rely on upscaling meaning internal resolution is much lower, typically 1080p (at 4K) and then CPU matters again.
I use 1440p at 500 Hz and aim for 500 fps, I am CPU bound in pretty much everything with a RTX 4080 overclocked by 10% and a 9800X3D at 5.6 GHz all-core OC using eCLK.
Casual gamers, aiming for 30-60 fps will be GPU bound for the most part. That is true.
High fps gamers, looking to maximize their monitors, typically is not, and rarely play at maximum settings, as they prefer high fps over slightly better visuals and then CPU matters big time.
Believe it or not. 144 Hz with 100 fps is not alot these days. Most serious gamers use 240 Hz minimum and alot of us are using 360 to even 500+ Hz now.
I am playing BF6 at 400+ fps avg with 200+ minimums. CPU performance matters here. I matters alot actually.
There's a huge difference between casual gaming at 30-60 fps, and actually taking advantage of 240+ Hz monitors, and this is where X3D shine and GPU means less.
Last edited:
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,799 +3,517
Aug 7, 2025 ... The Ryzen 7 5800X3D remains an extremely capable CPU, suitable for use even with GPUs as powerful as the RTX 5080 or 4090.
4 months ago....
4 months ago....
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,799 +3,517
All this looks very interesting, but the fact that you can get a z690 mb for 100$ and a i5 12600k for another 100$ (BF sale)and some decent 3600mhz 16gb DDR for a 100$, thats 300$, now for your system, you need a 2-300$ mb, 250$ for the cpu and another 300$ for the DDR5 ram, that's a total of 800$, that's 500$ difference.
Now show me the fps between these 2 systems
i5 12600k ryzen5 7500X3D
z690 x870E
DDR4 3600 DDR5 6000
rtx5070ti rtx5060
-------------------------------------
800$ VS 800$
I bet the intel system beats it, and then we have just looked at fps, there's things like input lag as well, esp with DDR5, so if you play online shooters the DDR4 ram system might still feel snappier and get a kill faster..
Now show me the fps between these 2 systems
i5 12600k ryzen5 7500X3D
z690 x870E
DDR4 3600 DDR5 6000
rtx5070ti rtx5060
-------------------------------------
800$ VS 800$
I bet the intel system beats it, and then we have just looked at fps, there's things like input lag as well, esp with DDR5, so if you play online shooters the DDR4 ram system might still feel snappier and get a kill faster..
Similar threads
